coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  Between September 1999 and November 2000 she was a director of a local branch of the U. private company (“the branch”). On 24 November 2000 the branch was liquidated. However, according to the applicant, the local tax authorities continued referring to her as “the director of the branch” in their fiscal documents, obliged her to provide and sign certain documents on behalf of the branch and to provide comments on the fiscal documents related to its activities.
6.  On 21 March 2001 the applicant lodged an administrative law complaint with the Kagarlyk Court challenging the lawfulness of the actions of the tax authorities. In the course of the proceedings, she also asked the court to declare that the statements made by the respondent’s officials at the court hearings concerning her involvement in the activities of the branch after its liquidation were untruthful.
7.  On 26 April 2001 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of a commercial dispute concerning the lawfulness of the liquidation of the branch. On 28 December 2001 the Kyiv City Commercial Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the latter matter.
8.  On 12 November 2001 and 14 January 2002 the applicant requested the Kagarlyk Court to resume the proceedings in her case.
9.  On 6 October 2003 the court resumed the proceedings.
10.  On 25 December 2003 the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the dispute had already been determined by the courts. On 23 March 2004 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 9 November 2006 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the decision of 23 March 2004.
11.  On 20 April 2007 the Kagarlyk Court partly allowed the applicant’s complaint and found that the tax authorities had unlawfully required her to act as the director of the branch in the course of an audit of its activities in February 2001. As regards the statements made by the respondent’s officials at the court hearings, the court found that those statements had not been “dissemination of information” within the meaning of the civil legislation.
12.  On 12 February and 17 December 2009 respectively, the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Kagarlyk Court.
13.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant amended her complaint on three occasions. According to the Government, she lodged a request for the adjournment of the proceedings for an unspecified period. The applicant stated that she had not sought adjournment of the proceedings.
14.  In February 2001 M., a tax officer, instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for tax evasion. On 17 March 2004 the Kagarlyk Court discontinued those proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the applicant’s actions.
15.  In 2001 the applicant lodged with the prosecutors a criminal complaint against M. about his allegedly unlawful actions in the course of the criminal proceedings. There has been no final decision given on the applicant’s complaint so far.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kyiv.
5.  On 27 June 2000 the applicant was arrested. The applicant, Mr D., and Mr B. were charged with one count of robbery. The applicant was also charged with handling of two handguns with cartridges.
6.  On 25 September 2000 the proceedings against Mr B. were disjoined.
7.  On 27 July 2001 the applicant was released having given a written undertaking not to abscond.
8.  In the period prior to 10 October 2002 the Darnitsky District Court of Kyiv (the district court) remitted the case twice for additional pre-trial investigation.
9.  On 10 October 2002 the district court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant was arrested.
10.  On 4 June 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (the court of appeal) quashed the part of the judgment concerning the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the district court. The court of appeal upheld the applicant’s detention on remand.
11.  On 14 November 2003 the district court remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation. The applicant was remanded in custody.
12.  On 14 April 2004 the court of appeal quashed the ruling of 14 November 2003 and remitted the case to the district court for consideration. By the same decision it upheld the applicant’s detention on remand.
13.  On 9 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation against the ruling of 14 April 2004.
14.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant was released having given a written undertaking not to abscond.
15.  On 23 December 2005 the district court sentenced the applicant to four years and 10 days’ imprisonment.
16.  On 22 November 2006 and 12 June 2007 the court of appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment of 23 December 2005.
17.  According to the records provided by the Government, the applicant challenged a judge sitting in his case on six occasions, and once he challenged a prosecutor. On three occasions the applicant failed to appear.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Baku.
6.  On 22 January 1998 the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to an apartment in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of the Baku City Executive Authority's order of 19 January 1998.
7.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the apartment was occupied by M. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Lachin, a region under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
8.  According to the applicant, despite her numerous demands, M. refused to vacate the apartment noting that he was an IDP and he had no other place to reside in.
9.  On an unspecified date in 1999, the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of M. and his family from the apartment.
10.  On 9 June 1999 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant's request. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the apartment on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 22 January 1998 and, therefore, the apartment was unlawfully occupied by M. and his family. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days after its delivery.
11.  According to the applicant, M. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce it.
12.  It appears from the case file that in 2008 the applicant lodged compensation proceedings against the State Committee for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons claiming EUR 72,000 for unlawful use of her flat by an IDP family. On 7 May 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 7 July 2008 the Court of Appeal and on 10 November 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the Yasamal District Court's judgment of 7 July 2008.
13.  At the time of the latest communication with the applicant, the judgment of 9 June 1999 in the applicant's favour remained unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Košice.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In an action of 19 July 1991 filed with the Košice II District Court the applicant sought the distribution of her and her former husband's matrimonial property.
7.  The District Court held a number of hearings and obtained evidence including an expert opinion. The Košice Regional Court dealt twice with a challenge of bias against the District Court judge and once with the applicant's appeal against a decision to pay an advance for the costs of an expert opinion.
8.  On 23 January 2007 the District Court determined the merits of the case. Both the applicant and the defendant appealed. The District Court transmitted the case to the court of appeal on 9 January 2008. The court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment on 8 July 2009 and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination.
9.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The applicant by her conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling 6 years and 8 months during the period subsequent to 15 February 1993 which fell within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
10.  The Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Žabokreky.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 9 June 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Martin District Court. He claimed the ownership and restitution of a motor car.
7.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant modified his claim and asked for leave to join another person as a defendant. The District Court granted the request.
8.  On 5 December 2003 the District Court remitted the case file to the Žilina Regional Court which decided on the defendant's appeal on 26 January 2004.
9.  On 13 July 2004 an expert was asked to prepare an opinion. The expert opinion was submitted on 27 April 2006.
10.  On 8 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.
11.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. Substantial delays imputable to the District Court had occurred. The proceedings had lasted 11 years and no decision had been delivered on the merits.
12.  The Constitutional Court awarded 80,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.
13.  On 12 October 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 31 October 2007 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the judgment. The decision became final on 27 February 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Dunajská Lužná.
5.  On 23 July 1996 the applicant challenged his dismissal from a job. The Bratislava II District Court and, on appeal, the Bratislava Regional Court found against the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant and became final on 17 December 2003.
6.  On 13 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
7.  On 22 September 2005 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, stating that this remedy could be lodged only in certain circumstances. The applicant had not invoked any such circumstances and the Supreme Court had not established their existence when examining ex officio the issue of admissibility of the appeal on points of law.
8.  On 23 August 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint about the overall length of the above proceedings, lodged on 16 July 2004. It held that the District and the Regional Court's proceedings had already ended in 2003 and the applicant's complaint in respect of that part was belated. It found no delays in the Supreme Court's proceedings.
9.  On 3 June 2008 the applicant requested reopening of the above civil proceedings. No decision in this respect has been adopted yet.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the Zaporizhzhya Region.
5.  In July 2001 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of murder.
6.  Following three remittals of the case for additional investigations (on 12 February 2002, 9 July 2003 and 2 June 2004), on 7 April 2005 the Melitopol Court found the applicant guilty of negligent homicide, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and amnestied him.
7.  In a separate ruling issued on the same date, the court noted that the case had been three times remitted for additional investigations as the investigators had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s rulings, which had resulted in the protraction of the proceedings and in the breach of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8.  On 29 June 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 7 April 2005 and remitted the case for additional investigations.
9.  Following two further remittals of the case by the Melitopol Court for additional investigations (on 28 March and 5 October 2006), on 3 March 2007 the police discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for want of proof against him.
10.  In the course of the proceedings the investigators and the courts heard thirty-eight witnesses, a victim’s relative and experts. Eleven forensic examinations were carried out, their overall duration amounting to approximately seven months. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear. Between 15 and 29 September 2005 the investigations were suspended due to the applicant’s illness. Some fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the experts’, witnesses’ or victim’s relatives’ failure to appear, illness of a judge or for unspecified reasons.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  He owns a house in that city. It stands on State-owned plot of land. On 11 June 1986 the local authorities ordered the demolition of the above house and the return of the land, with a view to building a new block of flats in its place, pursuant to the urban development plan. The authorities offered the applicant a three-room apartment and fixed him certain amounts in compensation. However, the house has not been demolished so far and remains in the applicant’s possession.
6.  On 21 August 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv against the local authorities claiming the right to privatise the plot of land on which his house stood.
7.  On 8 January 2002 the court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The applicant requested an extension of the procedural time-limit for lodging his appeal against the above judgment, as he had found out about it only on 18 March 2002, and the courts granted the extension requested.
8.  On 17 September 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
9.  On 27 March 2003 the Dzerzhynskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim. It found that the authorities had fixed compensation for the land, but he had not applied for it. The court explained that the applicant was entitled to apply to the local authorities to receive the compensation.
10.  On 15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.
11.  On 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera as a panel of three judges, upheld the lower courts’ decisions and rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated. The applicant was served with a copy of the final ruling on 18 June 2005.
12.  In the course of the proceedings the courts adjourned four hearings upon the applicant’s requests or due to his failure to appear. Furthermore, nineteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence or illness of the judge dealing with the case, absence of the respondents, their requests for adjournments or for unspecified reasons.
13.  In 1999 the local authorities annulled the State registration of the applicant’s title to the house.
14.  On 19 April 2006 the Dzerzhynskyy Court invalidated the authorities’ decision. It also invalidated their decision of 11 June 1986 (see paragraph 5 above). On 16 October 2008 the same court confirmed the applicant’s title to the house in question.
15.  As it appears from the case file, subsequently the applicant lodged a new request with the authorities for privatisation of the land surrounding his house and its examination is under-way.
16.  The local authorities sought a review of the judgment of 16 October 2008, allegedly because their representatives had been unable to be present in the hearing, but their request was dismissed. According to the applicant, the authorities also requested the courts to review the judgment of 19 April 2006. He provided no details as to the outcome of the latter request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Łódź.
6.  On 11 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of aggravated assault and theft.
7.  On 13 October 2005 the Łódz District Court ordered his pre-trial detention, which was subsequently extended on several occasions.
8.  The applicant's mother and wife were witnesses during the investigation stage of the proceedings.
9.  On 30 March 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Łódź District Court. The applicant was charged with aggravated assault and theft.
10.  On an unknown date the applicant's wife and mother applied to be allowed to visit the applicant in prison. Their applications bear handwritten notes “refusal, the person is a witness”, illegible signatures and the date of 3 April 2006.
11.  On 17 July and 2 August 2006 the applicant requested to be allowed to maintain personal contact with his family. His applications were rejected. The authorities noted that the family members themselves should apply for permission to visit the applicant in prison.
12.  On 14 November 2006 the applicant's mother applied for permission to visit the applicant in prison. Her application bears a note “refusal, witness in the case”, an illegible signature and the date of 14 November 2006.
13.  During a hearing held on 3 April 2007 the applicant's mother and wife stated that they refused to testify at the trial. On the same day, the applicant's mother was granted permission to visit the applicant in prison.
14.  On 27 June 2007 the applicant and his wife were granted a divorce.
15.  On 29 July 2008 the Łódź District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment.
16.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was lifted on 8 October 2008. After that date he was visited by his mother on 11 occasions.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the Lviv Region.
5.  In 1991 Mr A. (the applicant’s relative) lodged a claim with the Staryy Sambir Court against the applicant challenging her title to a house which she had inherited under her aunt’s will. In 1993, following the request of Mr A., the court discontinued the proceedings.
6.  On 24 July 1997, following the request of the widow of Mr A. (who had died in the meantime), the same court re-opened the case under the newly-discovered circumstances procedure.
7.  On 6 September 2000 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv delivered a judgment in the case. On 18 December 2000 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
8.  On 18 March 2003 the Galytskyy Court invalidated a part of the will.
9.  On 23 June 2003 and 15 November 2004 respectively the Lviv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment. The applicant received the decision of 15 November 2004 on 29 January 2005.
10.  Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully sought review of the case under the newly-discovered circumstances procedure.
11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings two hearings were adjourned upon the applicant’s requests, three hearings due to her failure to appear and three other hearings due to both parties’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed. According to her, between 3 and 30 June 2000 she underwent in-patient treatment and thus could not attend one of the hearings referred to by the Government. Three hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the judge or upon the other party’s request.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Lugansk. The second applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Slatino.
6.  In April 2005 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk against the Lugansk Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension.
7.  On 12 July 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 October 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months.
8.  On 1 December 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions.
9.  On 26 December 2005 a judge of the Supreme Court, relying on paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Code of Administrative Justice, ruled that the applicant's appeal in cassation should be remitted to the Higher Administrative Court.
10.  By a ruling of 24 March 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time.
11.  In October 2004 the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Kharkiv against the Kharkiv Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension.
12.  On 20 May 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 September 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months.
13.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions.
14.  By letter dated 30 November 2005, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal in cassation had been remitted to the Higher Administrative Court.
15.  By a ruling of 11 April 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time.